from an expert in the field:from an expert in the field:Opinions expressed are those ofthe individuals or organizationsrepresented and are presentedto foster discussion. Costco andThe Costco Connection take noposition on any Debate topic.

Marc Edelman (
www.marcedelman.com) is an associate professor
of law at City University of New York and a legal consultant on sports,
antitrust, gaming and intellectual property matters.

Jeffrey Dorfman is a professor at the University of Georgia (
www.uga.
edu), where he teaches macroeconomics.

SEPTEMBER 2014The Costco Connection23

AS THE dollars involved
in television contracts for
college football and basketball continue to rise,
many people wonder why
colleges cannot pay their student athletes. The
two-part answer is that they already do and
that in most cases there is no more money to
hand out.

Many student athletes currently receive
compensation in the form of free tuition, room,
meal plans and some money for books and miscellaneous expenses. Some universities also provide academic counseling, tutoring, life-skills
training and even nutritional advice. The combined value of all this easily tops $100,000 per
year in value for most football and basketball
players. For athletes in sports where subsequent
pro careers are possible, the coaching and exposure provided by a college are potentially worth
millions of dollars in enhanced future earnings.

Having established that the athletes are not
going uncompensated, let’s talk about why
changing the system to include direct pay for
athletes would be difficult.

Only two or three sports typically makemoney: football, men’s basketball and women’sbasketball. The remaining sports bring in littleor no revenue while still costing the collegesmoney. Because of this, more than 90 percent ofathletic departments lose money. Thus, in mostcases, raising the costs of football and basketballwill mean the elimination of other, non-revenuesports. New opportunities for a few will meanthe end of free education for thousands of swim-mers, softball players, track athletes and otherswho never appear on television but still arehighly dedicated to competing for their schools.

A related question: Will fans still be as passionate about college sports if many of the players are now paid professional athletes? We
admire amateur athletes for their purity and
tend to complain about highly paid pros. Are
students and their fans ready to accept a new
status quo?

Student athletes have voluntarily agreed to
the deal as it stands now: lots of free stuff in
exchange for playing a sport they love. Everyone
understands the contract involved. If student
athletes do not like the status quo, let them skip
college and play pro or non-college amateur
sports. The few who feel college athletics is
unfair to students should not destroy college
sports for the over 400,000 student athletes who
are enjoying and benefiting from the current
system. C

THE COLLEGE sports
industry generates $11
billion in annual revenues, which are then
passed along to NCAA
executives, athletic directors and coaches in the
form of lucrative salaries. In 2011, NCAA members paid their association president, Mark
Emmert, $1.7 million. Meanwhile, head football
coaches at the 44 NCAA Bowl Championship
Series schools received on average $2.1 million.

In contrast, with Division I college football
and men’s basketball players, the NCAA enforces
a principle of amateurism and levies penalties
against member colleges that provide student
athletes with benefits beyond an NCAA-permitted amount.

Not only do these rules leave an estimated
85 percent of college athletes who are on scholarship below the poverty line, but they seem to
violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, which aims
to preserve “free and unfettered” competition as
the rule of trade. The NCAA is composed of
1,066 independent member schools. When
these schools come together to pass rules to limit
athlete compensation, their rules can reasonably
be construed as an illegal form of wage fixing.

Some NCAA leaders claim that compensating student-athletes would destroy competitive
balance in college sports as well as contravene
federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title
IX. However, neither of these arguments has
much merit. Even if the NCAA allows colleges to
pay their athletes, individual conferences could
still maintain competitive balance via conference-wide revenue sharing and salary caps. Meanwhile,
Title IX is primarily about equal academic and
athletic opportunities—not depriving star athletes of free-market opportunities.

Ultimately, the argument in favor of allowing colleges to pay their student athletes comes
down to three factors: economic efficiency, distributive justice and a reasonable interpretation
of U.S. antitrust laws. The argument against paying college athletes devolves into self-interest.

College athletes should be allowed to compete for salaries on the free market, as many
other college employees already do. Of course, no
individual college should be forced to pay its athletes. By the same token, no individual college
should be prevented by the NCAA from doing
so, at least so long as it recognizes free economic
markets for the recruiting of college coaches, athletic directors and other administrators. C